Haley D. Torrey

Class Action/Mass Action Litigation

ESG-related

• Won dismissal for a global airline against putative class action claims in the SDNY that its statement "fly responsibly" and carbon offset program violate the New York consumer protection act, GBL 349 and 350, various other state consumer protection statutes, and attempt to state claims for breach of express warranty/implied warranty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and for alleged violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Court also sua sponte ordered the plaintiff's counsel to show cause why he should not be sanctioned
• Won dismissal for the same global airline of copycat case filed in federal court in Virginia. Current representation of the same global airline in copycat case filed in Michigan
• Current representation of a global food and beverage company in the defense of a putative class action in the SDNY. The complaint challenges the "carbon neutral" certification of a line of bottled waters and attempts to state claims for violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq. ("CLRA"), violations of New York's consumer protection act, GBL 349 and 350, breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The plaintiff amended once and added a new plaintiff asserting claims under the Massachusetts consumer protection law
• Assessment of the sustainability statements by a global company regarding its potential class action risk
• Won dismissal for a global consumer products manufacturer defending a putative nationwide class action in the EDNY against allegations that Selsun Blue Naturals Shampoo is allegedly not natural. The complaint alleged claims under New York's consumer protection act, GBL 349 and 350, for alleged violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, for breach of express warranty; and unjust enrichment. In response to our argument at a pre-motion conference, the Court advised the plaintiff that it could file an amended complaint. The Court granted the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety
• Won dismissal for the same global consumer company in the SDNY alleging that the product label for Dulcolax® Soft Chews and Dulcolax® Liquid Laxative, misleadingly claims to be all natural, and does not contain any synthetic ingredients, when allegedly it contains synthetic ingredients. The plaintiff asserted claims for violations New York's consumer protection act, GBL 349 and 350, and for unjust enrichment. The Court granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety
• Current representation of the same global consumer company defending a putative class action in California federal court alleging that the product label for Unisom Simple Slumbers misleadingly claims to be all natural, and does not contain any synthetic ingredients, when allegedly contains synthetic ingredients. The plaintiff asserts claims for violations of California's CLRA, FAL and UCL and for claims for breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. The Court granted our motion to dismiss in part

Consumer Class Actions

• Won dismissal for a global food and beverage company in the defense of a putative class action in the SDNY. The complaint challenged the labeling of its International Delight Coffee Creamer by describing it as a "coffee creamer" that is "delightfully creamy" when the product allegedly does not contain "cream or dairy ingredients beyond a de minimis amount of sodium caseinate.”  On behalf of a putative Texas class and a multi-state consumer fraud class, the plaintiff attempted to allege: violations of either the Texas or New York consumer protection statute on behalf of the named plaintiff; violations of other states' consumer protection statutes; breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose, and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"); negligent misrepresentation; fraud; and unjust enrichment. The Court granted our motion to dismiss in its entirety
• Obtained dismissal for the same global food and beverage company in defense of a putative class action originally brought in Illinois, but that we obtained a transfer to the SDNY that also attacked the International Delight brand, claiming that the label statement “coffee creamer” meant the Product must contain cream or dairy.  The plaintiff attempted to assert claims under the Illinois consumer protection statute, as well as those of nine additional states, violations of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq. (“MMWA”), breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment.  After we outlined our motion to dismiss arguments for the plaintiff’s counsel, he voluntarily dismissed the case
• Successfully resolved claims against a global food and beverage company in the defense of a putative class action in Colorado federal court. On behalf of a putative Massachusetts class and a multi-state consumer fraud class, the plaintiff attempted to allege: violations of the Colorado consumer protection statute; violations of other states' consumer protection statutes; breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose, and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"); fraud; and unjust enrichment
• Obtained a favorable settlement for a global computer company in the defense of a putative class action in the EDNY. The complaint alleges violations of New York's consumer protection act, GBL 349 and 350, and a consumer fraud claim under N.J.S.A. §§ 56:8-1, et seq. We obtained a favorable settlement, which the Court approved
• Current representation of a global computer company in a multidistrict litigation consisting of multiple statewide and nationwide class actions alleging that the company promotes and makes available apps that constitute illegal gambling. Claims alleged in the various class actions include, civil RICO, unfair business practices, unjust enrichment, and state loss recovery statutes.  We have filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted in large part
• Current representation of the same global computer company in a putative class action in the WDNY alleging that users pay a "price premium" to "Buy" movies, TV shows, music, and other media believing that “Purchased” content will “be available for viewing and/or listening indefinitely” when allegedly the content may be removed. The plaintiffs attempt to assert claims for violations of New York's consumer protection act, GBL 349 and 350, and unjust enrichment. We have moved to dismiss the case in its entirety, and that motion is pending
• Current representation of a global consumer company in the defense of two virtually identical putative class action alleging that Cortizone-10® brand OTC topical hydrocortisone products are misleadingly described as “Maximum Strength.” The first alleged violations of New York General Business Law section 349 and section 350. After we filed our motion to dismiss, the plaintiff dismissed their claims. In the other, the plaintiff asserts claims for violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq., and Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq. We have moved to dismiss that case as well and the motion is pending
• Current representation of the owner of theme park and resort hotel in the defense of a putative class action alleging claims of “drip pricing.”  The plaintiff brings claims under the New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law § 25.07

Privacy and Data Breach Class Actions

• Won dismissal of a putative class action in the EDNY against British Airways arising from a criminal attack on their computer systems. The named plaintiff initially asserted claims for New York's consumer protection law, GBL 349, negligence, implied contract, and violations of the NY data breach statute. We filed a pre-motion letter demonstrating the plaintiff lacked standing, that his claims were pre-empted by the Airline Deregulation Act, and that he failed to state a claim.  At the pre-motion conference on our motion to dismiss, the Court found that the plaintiff lacked standing, his claims were pre-empted, and questioned his ability to state a claim under the NY data breach statute.  The plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint, which we again moved to dismiss.  The Court granted our motion to dismiss in its entirety and the Second Circuit affirmed
• Obtained dismissal of claims against a global financial services company arising from what the plaintiff characterized as a data breach. The plaintiff initially tried to state 12 claims on behalf of a nationwide putative class: negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, bailment, and violations of Cal. Const., art. I, § 1 (“California Constitution”), Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. (“CRA”), N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 (Section 349), and N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 899-aa. After we filed our first motion to dismiss, the plaintiff abandoned five of the claims, and we moved to dismiss once again. While our motion to dismiss the amended complaint was pending, the plaintiff gave up and dismissed his suit
• Current representation of a global software company in the largest multidistrict litigation filed in the wake of a cyberattack
• Current representation of a global financial services company in a series of putative class actions in the United States and Canada alleging fifteen causes of action including negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, intentional misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, breach of bailment, declaratory judgment, invasion of privacy, and claims under the California Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Consumer Privacy Act.  These cases are ongoing.
• Current representation of international hospitality and entertainment company in connection with 15 putative class actions arising out of cyberattack.

Breach of Contract

• Won dismissal for NYU in the defense of five putative nationwide class actions filed in the SDNY seeking the refund of tuition and fees after Covid-19 forced the University to pivot to remote learning and defeated class certification and obtained dismissal in a sixth. These cases assert claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion, and violations of New York's consumer protection laws, GBL 349. In denying class certification, the Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish commonality, typicality, adequacy, that her counsel was inadequate, and individualized issues predominated. The plaintiff initially appealed the denial and dismissal to the Second Circuit, but gave up during briefing and the case is now resolved
• Won dismissal for a global airline in the defense of a putative class action filed in the Northern District of Illinois regarding an alleged failure to provide refunds in the wake of the COVID-19 global pandemic
• Obtained a favorable settlement for British Airways in the defense of a putative nationwide class action filed in the SDNY alleging a breach of contract regarding an alleged failure to provide refunds in the wake of the COVID-19 global pandemic
• Obtained favorable settlement for British Airways in the defense of a putative nationwide class action in the EDNY. The complaint was brought purportedly on behalf of a nationwide class of members of the airline's frequent flyer program and alleged that the Company breached its contract when it levied a fuel surcharge on reward tickets